Appeal No. 1997-0534
Application 08/171,904
noted by the Court in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13,
160 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971), a claim may not be rejected
solely because of the type of language used to define the
subject matter for which patent protection is sought.
With this as background, we evaluate the above specific
positions of the Examiner and Appellants. We are of the
opinion that Appellants are correct in that the phrase “micron
size” taken in the context of the specification and the common
knowledge of artisans in the mechanically ground powdered
superconductor materials has a clear meaning as to establish
the scope of the claims. As to the alleged missing antecedent
basis, the Examiner is being highly technical. We are
convinced that the recited phrase “total” clearly connotes
“total weight”. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 as
being anticipated by Wijeyesekera.
We note that a prior art reference anticipates the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007